When you GOTTA leave the delicate niceties for a moment, and CARVE OUT a new job, a new life or your parietal lobe! Scraping extremism off the memes of today, one spoon at a time!
MP3 recordings: parodies, satires and serious!
-Karridine-

Monday, October 23, 2006

Tyler Hicks Has a GREAT Chance to Answer!

Photo-journalist Tyler Hicks STILL has a great opportunity to answer questions about his "Pieta" photo at the LightStalkers' blog. Not questions about the captioning of the photo, simply technical questions about how far the 'injured' person fell, where he fell from, how he was able (while falling) to get his feet into such a bizarre and inaccessible position. (Tyler might be able to address the Magic Hat issue, too, where the "victim's" hat suddenly appears under his elbow, but this detail is not germane to the issue, except peripherally!)

For your entertainment, analysis from an ongoing thread at Lightstalkers blog:

You wrote “It is up to individuals … to determine what types of questions are appropriate”

Fair enough maybe you can help me:

Is it OK to ask where exactly this person fell from?

Can I ask for photos of this place and of the scene in general (I already have a large collection) ?

Is it OK to ask how come his left leg is one side of a metal structure and the right leg is on the other side ? (keeping in mind that his fall is described from above and from “considerable height”)

Is is OK to ask how come while falling from “considerable height” his leg got into a location closed from all sides (including from above) by the structure and wire mesh ?

If it is not OK to ask these questions I will not ask them.

Is it OK to ask why in a different photo of that person the dark side appears too dark and when the photo is lightened there is something that appears as a notebook case that he may be carrying? (note: I am not sure what is going on in that photo but I think it is fair to ask for clarifications)

Is it OK to ask for more photographic evidence from that scene ? Especially photos of a person that appears dead but turned out to be very much alive?

IS it OK to ask if a photo of a 'victim carried out of a bombed building' is the correct news reporting photo to attach to a building that was empty when bombed ? (Was the building indeed empty? I think so but want to hear from Tyler.)

Is it OK to ask if the bombed building was empty?

Is it OK to ask for more information so that we, as photographers discuss the editorial issues raised by transmitting this photo?

Is it OK to ask how is it to work in Hizballah-controlled territory ? Was there any attempt in scene manipulation that was detected (not that scene on which the facts are not yet clear but other scenes)?

If it is not OK to ask these questions than you are right I should not be asking them at all.

“And some people – like you – keep falsely tarring photographer Tyler Hicks as a liar, by repeatedly calling his integrity into question over this issue.” –which Eyal NEVER does, and actually bends over backward to avoid doing, by action, inaction or implication!

He asks questions about the PHOTO, and is accused of attacking the PHOTOGRAPHER, accused of promoting Israel, accused of trolling, accused of willful ignorance and naivety, accused of willful distortion…

Such as that practiced by one of Eyal’s accusers, thusly: “Are you also saying now that to fall and knock yourself out, you need to fall from some great height? or some specific height? Or a height higher than where the photographer is standing?”

The Eyal-accuser (or Tyler-defender) makes it clear that Eyal asking about height is a perversion, and yet Tyler is the one who introduced the issue when HE stated, “…one man fell from a considerable height onto his back and was seriously injured.”

Appealing to authority (Tyler’s good character) is invoked to serve as an answer to questions about the height of his fall, his supposed injuries, the method whereby his legs got into a visible-in-the photo extremely unlikely situation…

Read it for yourself.

Tyler’s cohorts and others repeatedly, day after day, week after week, seek to delegitimize the questions, begin attacking the questioners and imagining wonderful scenarios AS IF they were there, while ignoring Eyal’s continued reminders that “Tyler WAS there, his camera WAS there, and Tyler can bring light to these questions!”

By October 16, the ad hominem attacks are becoming clear AND repeated, because Eyal’s questions have NEVER BEEN ADDRESSED by Tyler, OR posters at the site!

“None of us can answer your question and I can’t believe this isn’t obvious to you by now. You’re getting absolutely nowhere except under a lot of people’s skin.” Then have Tyler answer the questions, PLEASE!

“As someone who really believes in the power and responsibility of photojournalism, this makes me sick. Tyler Hicks especially pisses me off. I used to look up to him, I’ve heard him speak at photojournalism conferences. If I heard him speak again I would have to confront him about that sequence of pictures. It’s not even believable, it’s so faked it’s ridiculous. It hurts because 98% of the journalists out there have integrity and honor. But because of these—-holes who are greedy for that award winning picture and too lazy to do the work to make it honestly; people generalize and label all journalists as frauds.”

Posted at LightStalkers, Friday Oct 20 at 20:37, but immediately dismissed as “…silly talk like this…”

Solomon says, “But enough about the picture, because that's not what this posting is about. I'm not here to tell you about photos, I'm here to tell you about photographers -- their delusions, their insularity, their siege mentality, their guild consciousness, their omerta... and their hatred for blogs (and bloggers!) and any of their fellows who dare step out of line.”

An omerta is an oath of silence, particularly about Insider Secrets, and Ayer unwittingly violated the photo-journalists’ omerta, in this case.

But this is an ongoing event, on a live thread as of 11:40 AM, Bangkok time, with -Signoff